Questions raised on rebranding still not answered

SO, Denver Webb’s letter (“Sad to see NMU issue misrepresented”, September 11) seems to be the next of what we expect to be a series of “unofficial” communications from Nelson Mandela University.

Yes, Dr Webb, “dogs only bark at a moving car”.

Something must be happening for you and Lebogang Hashatse to respond in public to my concerns, despite the fact that Nelson Mandela University claims to have nothing further to contribute to the conversation.

So, I am heartened by your “unofficial” interest in our search for transparency and truth.

Equally, I have some concerns about the misrepresentations contained in your letter.

Yes, I pushed for answers to my questions at the Alumni AGM on August 21.

As an alumnus, this is my right and my responsibility.

No, the specific questions that I raised at the AGM were not answered, they were evaded.

The chairperson, in fact, specifically stated that Hashatse would not be answering any of my questions regarding the rebranding.

I understand that the meeting may have been recorded, and if so, I am sure that we could verify this from the recording quite easily.

No, Dr Webb, I have not been active or involved in any business of any kind since June 30 this year.

Had you done your research properly, you would know this.

As your letter proves, you may need some assistance with your research skills – odd, considering that research is a pillar of a vibrant university.

Yes, the university did reply with several letters, but none of these letters provided specific answers to the questions I posed.

For example, I have repeatedly asked for direct access to the documentation confirming that officials followed correct procedure when deviating from the university’s supply chain management policy document.

As a member of the convocation and the public at large, I have a right to view this documentation – if it exists.

My request has not even been acknowledged.

There is no prejudice, but the university’s failure to even attempt to properly answer my questions serves only to strengthen the uncertainty.

While Webb has attempted to distract from the real issues with his chauvinist, poorly researched, inaccurate and disparaging attack on my personal character, the real issues remain and should not be lost from sight.

The university has acknowledged in writing that it deviated from policy in implementing the rebranding.

Four reasons have been provided for this deviation:

It claims to have been under “immense pressure” to deliver, in spite of the fact that it took more than 12 months from promulgation of the new name to launch of the rebranding;

It unilaterally decided that no local agencies or alumni were capable of fulfilling the brief and that it was not even worth offering them an opportunity to tender;

The university had already fulfilled its commitment to the local community and therefore had absolutely no obligation to open a tender process;

The value of the rebranding fell below a prescribed threshold, allowing it to bypass the need to put the rebranding out to tender.

The reality is that with professional and responsible management, even with the intervening Fees Must Fall disruptions, there was more than enough time for the process to be opened to tender, for tenders to be properly and fairly considered, and for the job to be awarded to the most capable agency. This simply didn’t happen. Why not? Hashatse believes that local industry and alumni to be incapable of fulfilling the brief.

At the Alumni AGM he said, “Very few top students come to PE.” Is this the university’s official position?

Has the university become so arrogant that it believes it has surpassed any obligation to support local business and to at least have offered local industry the opportunity to tender for this major project?

What does this say about the real values espoused by the leadership of the university and are these aligned with the man in whose name this exercise was undertaken?

I have been told that the cost of the rebranding exercise itself was somewhere between R265 000 and R750 000. The figure remains unclear. The downstream costs, however, including revision of stationery, signage, marketing material, uniforms, livery, electronic media, advertising, etc, will inevitably far exceed the R2-million threshold, above which the university is obligated to follow a formal tender process.

The university’s supply chain management policy document clearly states that jobs may not be broken down into their component parts so as to avoid exceeding a threshold.

Why then was the process broken down?

And why didn’t the rebranding go out to tender?

Would this not have been in the best interests of the university?

Finally, Webb suggests that my attempts to find truth and transparency are disingenuous, amateurish and “artificial”.

He also suggests that I am a lone and unsupported voice. This is not the case. A letter supporting the search for truth and transparency was published below your letter, Dr Webb, and almost 1 000 social media users have come out in support of the search for real answers from the university.

More still are coming forward with issues that raise further questions.

If there is nothing to hide, why not answer the questions and provide the documentation?

So you tell me, Dr Webb, why are the dogs barking?

Jennifer Lindridge, alumnus, Nelson Mandela University